Dear Mr. Ruff,
With your 2013-08-27 posting we have ample evidence now that you, along with Mr. Rogue, flunked sophomore English in high school, because (a) you seem to have no appreciation for reasoned writing, even if lengthy, (b) you get burned for the third time in the row by the misuse of over-generalizations (e.g., "everthing" and "all"), and (c)_ your ego is too big to see your ignorance in not recognizing when your argumentative position has been utterly destroyed. Case in point with emphasis added:
Once I identify intentionally misleading or deceptive information in someones work I reject all of their work because it simply cannot be trusted as accurate or truthful any longer.
There's that catchy phrase, "I reject all of their work" that is little different from your ignorant & misguided explanation in this thread "I reject everything from a particular researcher"... once, of course, intentionally misleading or deceptive information is discovered. "All" and "everything" leave no room for exceptions (e.g., those pesky gaddammit nuggets of truth that ain't nobody had no issues with).
It isn't a question about whether or not we can trust their work, because obviously, we can't.
But the proper recourse to suspected disinformation is to:
(1) Label and compartmentalize the instances of blatant disinformation.
(2) Rewind and review their past and present (and future) work with a jaundice eye to classify items as (a) probably valid, (b) probably invalid, or (c)_ don't know.
(3) Research independently to solidify classifications.
(4) [Optional] Speculate into their disinformation motives and goals.
Finding instances of disinformation -- particularly in the realm of 9/11 that has active disinformationalists practicing in government agency reports, the mainstream media, and cyberspace -- does not absolve fair & objective researchers from reviewing their work anew for items of merit. You get no free passes that permit a rejection of a body of work, its substantiating evidence, and nuggets of truth out-of-hand; you've got to justify the rejection on each and every item individually.